re: #62 Daniel Ballard

“To answer what?”
That would be who not what. You, on case law. How did you miss that?

I still have no clue what you’re asking.

That hunt thing looks like an absurd stretch, is that what they call an ad absurdum point? And if you propose dismissing positive outcomes you have departed what most would call a fair look at the subject.

Okay then.

You must be referring to someone else there. I did not treat your position as you describe.

Then why do you keep referring to throwing out all the self-defense laws?

The only thing I object to is removing the obligation— an obligation which would save the lives of the defenders, I strongly believe, at a higher rate than standing their ground— to retreat if able.

If I did by accident I’ll retract and apologize fully. But I do not recall ever intending such. As much as we have disagreed today I respect you more than that. Both our positions are reasonable today.

I’m not sure what your position is, still, I’m afraid. You’ve said that the law needs to be altered. I’m not sure if what you mean is that you think people should retreat if they’re able, or not, or how you would want this law altered that would be in any way better.